Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

This will apply to any Scotland independence vote as well I presume?

Scotland votes Leave, rUk does something you don't expect, another vote will be fine?

Absolutely fine with me, as my posts from 2014 demonstrate. Actually not just fine, but essential.

Vote first to give a mandate to negotiate a leave/independence deal

Vote again to ratify this deal, with the alternative being to remain in the EU/UK

Completely consistent on my part.

[Gordon]

This will apply to any Scotland independence vote as well I presume?

That depends on whether, when Indyref2 occurs, as I hope it will, that there will be sufficient information available so that the Scottish electorate can be considered to have made an informed decision at the time, as opposed to the uninformed choice made in favour of Brexit. Those campaigning for Scottish Independence in future will, I hope, have learned lessons from the Brexit experience and that where the proposal is to change the status quo the electorate need to be fully informed of the implications of the change - and yes, having seen Brexit unfold I think that Indyref2 must involve better information than was the case in 2014, where looking back issues such as currency weren't well handled.

Of course we now have new information compared to 2014 that represent a significant change in circumstances for Scotland. In 2014 we were told, and by the same Tory PM who allowed the Brexit referendum to happen, that if Scotland wanted to remain in the EU we would have to stay in the UK, and that may have encouraged some to vote to stay in the UK so as to remain in the EU, and of course in 2016 Scotland votes by a notable margin to remain in the EU - and yet it is the very party who threatened that we'd be leaving the EU if we voted for independence that allowed this referendum and is now trying to implement Brexit (though the fat lady has yet to sing).

Just as a second referendum on Brexit is justified on the basis that the 2016 result occurred in the absence of relevant information then Indyref2 would be justified on the basis that there has been a significant change in circumstances, and especially if Brexit does happen: sometimes there is a need to revisit previous decisions if things change or new information comes to light. 

Scotland votes Leave, rUk does something you don't expect, another vote will be fine?

That didn't happen though: but that isn't the main point about the weakness of Brexit for me. I'd say that if an uniformed decision is taken (on just about anything) and new information becomes available before the decision is implemented and finalised that describes in more detail the consequences of the decision, then only a fool would prefer not to reconsider their earlier decision: they may come to the same view of course, but they may not. 

[jakswan]

Which part:

That you haven't been banging on about Norway/EFTA - which I think a quick check of your recent post will prove to be the case.

Yep agree with that all for Norway type deal.

Or that you don't understand Norway/EFTA - which again is demonstrably true as you clearly didn't realise that the Norway/EFTA situation on freedom of movement is identical to the EU. It matters not whether you care about migration, it demonstrates that you don't understand what you are talking about.

I don't agree its identical but since it is not that important at this stage don't see the point in debating it, so conceded the point. Tell yourself you won and have a big prize.

May I remind you that come April 1st 2019, and the final deal is up for grabs. Some Brexiteers will be arguing for Canada type deal, you will be arguing for Norway and when the issue of immigration comes out you will now have to admit that Norway deal in this regard is actually identical.

Anything could happen over the next few monthes, I know you going all in for another vote but may I suggest you might think ahead a little.

[jakswan]

That depends on whether, when Indyref2 occurs, as I hope it will, that there will be sufficient information available so that the Scottish electorate can be considered to have made an informed decision at the time, as opposed to the uninformed choice made in favour of Brexit. Those campaigning for Scottish Independence in future will, I hope, have learned lessons from the Brexit experience and that where the proposal is to change the status quo the electorate need to be fully informed of the implications of the change - and yes, having seen Brexit unfold I think that Indyref2 must involve better information than was the case in 2014, where looking back issues such as currency weren't well handled.

The Brexit vote was not uninformed, the government's own literature said a future deal was uncertain. So let us get this straight, indyref2, you will know with certainty, what is going to happen with the currency, requires UK negotiation, EU membership requires UK and EU negotiation, the border requires UK and EU negotiation, customs union same, free trade the same and many more issues.

Of course we now have new information compared to 2014 that represent a significant change in circumstances for Scotland. In 2014 we were told, and by the same Tory PM who allowed the Brexit referendum to happen,

This is getting boring now for to trot out the same line without addressing my refutuation. Labour LibDems Tories all supported the EU referendum bill. In fairness to Cameron, his tactics were awful but you can't accuse him of not trying to win Brexit vote.

Just as a second referendum on Brexit is justified on the basis that the 2016 result occurred in the absence of relevant information then Indyref2 would be justified on the basis that there has been a significant change in circumstances, and especially if Brexit does happen: sometimes there is a need to revisit previous decisions if things change or new information comes to light. 

Indyref2 is justified for all sorts of reasons not just that surely?

That didn't happen though: but that isn't the main point about the weakness of Brexit for me. I'd say that if an uniformed decision is taken (on just about anything) and new information becomes available before the decision is implemented and finalised that describes in more detail the consequences of the decision then only a fool would prefer not to reconsider their earlier decision: they may come to the same view of course, but they may not.

So indyref2 will require two votes, you can't possibly sort out all the issues before the decision, it will inevitably be uninformed to some degree.

[Gordon]

The Brexit vote was not uninformed, the government's own literature said a future deal was uncertain.

Then they should have done some due diligence before going to the polls and allowing the electorate to make a choice without adequate information.

So let us get this straight, indyref2, you will know with certainty, what is going to happen with the currency, requires UK negotiation, EU membership requires UK and EU negotiation, the border requires UK and EU negotiation, customs union same, free trade the same and many more issues

I think the lesson here is that there is a need to provide the electorate with a better assessment of the potential consequences than was the case in both 2014 and 2016, where given the issues you mention that have been highlighted during Brexit it probably requires more time to prepare the case before any voting occurs. There is also the question of deciding whether the matter is best addressed through a GE campaign, and if a referendum is better suited then whether it is advisory or not, and also what level of electoral support is required in favour of changing the status quo - the 52/48 split for Brexit is hardly a ringing endorsement that the electorate are fully supportive, which is why the 'get behind the country' slogans I've heard since are laughable.

This is getting boring now for to trot out the same line without addressing my refutuation. Labour LibDems Tories all supported the EU referendum bill. In fairness to Cameron, his tactics were awful but you can't accuse him of not trying to win Brexit vote.

In better hands, bearing in mind I suspect he didn't think the electorate would vote to leave, it may be that there would be more confidence in this result being an informed choice had more competent politicians taken care to better prepare the electorate. Given the narrow margin of the result, and that much of the detail is very recent, we'll not know whether the electorate would vote differently given the information now available to them until we check. Remember too that at present neither of the two main parties in Westminster overall are the main party in a Scottish context, and that the Scottish electorate are more pro-EU than anti-EU. 

Indyref2 is justified for all sorts of reasons not just that surely?

So indyref2 will require two votes, you can't possibly sort out all the issues before the decision, it will inevitably be uninformed to some degree.

Uninformed to some degree certainly, but hopefully to less of a degree that the 2014 and 2016 referenda were in that if there is an Indyref2 the major elements will have undergone enough prior assessment so that the result can be considered to be an informed decision - even if it takes longer to get to the voting stage.

[SteveH]

If Brexit goes ahead, it'll be an economic disaster. If it is cancelled there will be, literally, riots in the streets. Either way, there will be bitterness and division for years to come - and all because of an utterly cynical and spectacularly irresponsible decision to hold a completely unnecessary referendum to spike the guns of UKRAP by Cameron, one of the worst Prime Ministers ever: not quite as bad as Th*tch*r, but not far off. The omnishambles since reveals May to be pretty appalling as well. If there's any justice, after the next General Election the Tories will be out of power for a generation. I'm old enough now for it to be possible that after that election, whenever it comes, I never see another Tory government in my life. It'd make me very happy if that were so.

[jakswan]

In better hands, bearing in mind I suspect he didn't think the electorate would vote to leave, it may be that there would be more confidence in this result being an informed choice had more competent politicians taken care to better prepare the electorate. Given the narrow margin of the result, and that much of the detail is very recent, we'll not know whether the electorate would vote differently given the information now available to them until we check. Remember too that at present neither of the two main parties in Westminster overall are the main party in a Scottish context, and that the Scottish electorate are more pro-EU than anti-EU. 

Its impossible to know what the outcome of Scotland x EU x UK deal would be until they actually did it. So you would need three referendums?

Brexit was UK wide, Scotland having voted to remain in UK.

[jakswan]

If Brexit goes ahead, it'll be an economic disaster. If it is cancelled there will be, literally, riots in the streets. Either way, there will be bitterness and division for years to come - and all because of an utterly cynical and spectacularly irresponsible decision to hold a completely unnecessary referendum to spike the guns of UKRAP by Cameron, one of the worst Prime Ministers ever: not quite as bad as Th*tch*r, but not far off. The omnishambles since reveals May to be pretty appalling as well. If there's any justice, after the next General Election the Tories will be out of power for a generation. I'm old enough now for it to be possible that after that election, whenever it comes, I never see another Tory government in my life. It'd make me very happy if that were so.

Norway deal won't be economic disaster, Corbyn will.

I think Corbyn voted for the referendum so if you are going to blame politicians then ....

 

[SteveH]

Norway deal won't be economic disaster, Corbyn will.

I think Corbyn voted for the referendum so if you are going to blame politicians then ....

Why would Corbyn be an economic disaster? It really is no good making flat statements of opinion, as I frequently tell another poster, with no supporting arguments.

[Gordon]

Its impossible to know what the outcome of Scotland x EU x UK deal would be until they actually did it. So you would need three referendums?

I think either one vote, but only if there is sufficient preparatory information so that the electorate can be considered to have made an informed choice, or two: the first a yes or no to setting out the terms, followed by one to agree/disagree with the terms.

Brexit was UK wide, Scotland having voted to remain in UK.

Indeed, but under, as it turns out, the false pretence that in doing so EU membership would continue. 

[ProfessorDavey]

May I remind you that come April 1st 2019, and the final deal is up for grabs. Some Brexiteers will be arguing for Canada type deal, you will be arguing for Norway and when the issue of immigration comes out you will now have to admit that Norway deal in this regard is actually identical.

Bit presumptuous of you to assume that I will be arguing for Norway. I won't be - I'll be arguing to rejoin the EU.

[jakswan]

Why would Corbyn be an economic disaster? It really is no good making flat statements of opinion, as I frequently tell another poster, with no supporting arguments.

You have always evaded that debate.

[jakswan]

I think either one vote, but only if there is sufficient preparatory information so that the electorate can be considered to have made an informed choice, or two: the first a yes or no to setting out the terms, followed by one to agree/disagree with the terms.

So in Brexit terms we leave then vote on the type of deal, EFTA  or free trade.

[SteveH]

You have always evaded that debate.

And you're evading my question!

[jakswan]

Bit presumptuous of you to assume that I will be arguing for Norway. I won't be - I'll be arguing to rejoin the EU.

That ship will have sailed.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think either one vote, but only if there is sufficient preparatory information so that the electorate can be considered to have made an informed choice, or two: the first a yes or no to setting out the terms, followed by one to agree/disagree with the terms.

I think it is effectively impossible to have just one vote. You are theoretically correct that you could have one vote if there is 'sufficient preparatory information' - in other words an agreement between Scotland/UK, UK/EU on independence/withdrawal. But in the real world no governments are going to put in the enormous effort so agree the deal in advance of a democratic mandate. Frankly if the UK or Scotland asked for negotiations on withdrawal/independence before a referendum mandate the EU/UK would quite reasonably tell them to bog off.

So the only realistic solution to ensure that:
1. The negotiations can take place to agree a deal and
2. The people make a decision on the basis of an agreed deal

is to have 2 votes, the first to provide a mandate to negotiate an independence/withdrawal deal and a second vote, once that is agreed to accept that deal or retain the status quo (remaining in the UK/EU). If a no deal option is a plausible way to leave (I'm not convinced it is in either case) then that could plausibly be a third option.

[ProfessorDavey]

That ship will have sailed.

No it wont - there will always be an option to rejoin the EU. Don't forget you are arguing for rejoining an organisation we left 45 years ago.

[jakswan]

And you're evading my question!

I have been waiting for months for your reply.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15962.msg751350#msg751350

[jakswan]

No it wont - there will always be an option to rejoin the EU. Don't forget you are arguing for rejoining an organisation we left 45 years ago.

Will have to see when the time comes.

[ProfessorDavey]

Will have to see when the time comes.

There will be nothing to see - applying to join the EU will always be an option available to the UK. It is, of course, much more convenient not to leave in the first place by revoking article 50. But even if we have left, regardless of the situation we can apply to rejoin.

Sorry to burst your bubble if you thought that people would simply stop arguing for being in the EU the day we leave - it isn't going to happen. And the best way to super-charge that argument is to leave without a democratic mandate on the actual brexit deal we leave on.

[jakswan]

There will be nothing to see - applying to join the EU will always be an option available to the UK. It is, of course, much more convenient not to leave in the first place by revoking article 50. But even if we have left, regardless of the situation we can apply to rejoin.

Sorry to burst your bubble if you thought that people would simply stop arguing for being in the EU the day we leave - it isn't going to happen. And the best way to super-charge that argument is to leave without a democratic mandate on the actual brexit deal we leave on.

I think the debate will move to what type of long term arrangement we have with the EU, if you campaign to rejoin I think that is absolutely fine. Don't you worry about any bubbles.

[Gordon]

So in Brexit terms we leave then vote on the type of deal, EFTA  or free trade.

Nope - 2016 was, at best, a vote for the idea of Brexit, since an idea was all it was in the absence of any detailed information, and now that there is this divisive deal on the table and since Article 50 has already been triggered, on the presumption no doubt that some mythical 'good deal' was a given - now we know better.

I think that the only options  are either a second referendum to either accept or reject the terms of this deal or not, and if not then Brexit in the guise of this deal is cancelled: in effect, a public rejection of this deal is a rejection of the idea Brexit on the terms offered so that the status quo applies, or that Article 50 is revoked on the basis that there is a political impasse to an extent that it is unsafe to proceed given the risks of 'no deal' by default, and so the current Brexit process is ended. Whether or not Brexit is pursued again in the future is another master entirely.

I suppose the lesson from the current mess is that either there is a better preparation for single vote referendum or there is a two-stage process, where the first vote is on the principle to be negotiated, and if there is approval for that then a follow-up on accepting or rejecting details of the negotiation (possibly with a threshold to be exceeded to confirm approval). This Brexit seems so toxic now it needs to be put out of its misery: the other lesson is, of course, never trust the Tories again.   

[Aruntraveller]

the other lesson is, of course, never trust the Tories again.   

Don't understand.

"Again?"

[Gordon]

Don't understand.

"Again?"

Indeed - I think, on reflection, 'ever' would have been a better choice than 'again'.

[jakswan]

I think that the only options  are either a second referendum to either accept or reject the terms of this deal or not, and if not then Brexit in the guise of this deal is cancelled: in effect, a public rejection of this deal is a rejection of the idea Brexit on the terms offered so that the status quo applies, or that Article 50 is revoked on the basis that there is a political impasse to an extent that it is unsafe to proceed given the risks of 'no deal' by default, and so the current Brexit process is ended. Whether or not Brexit is pursued again in the future is another master entirely.

There is no deal on the table, there is only a transitional arrangement. There is no way politicians are going to be able to do what you say, it has to reversed by a referendum.

So you would have to have another vote and ask exactly the same question as last time but make people aware that the options would EFTA or Free trade trade but you wouldn't know which one, but everyone was aware of that last time.

I suppose the lesson from the current mess is that either there is a better preparation for single vote referendum or there is a two-stage process, where the first vote is on the principle to be negotiated, and if there is approval for that then a follow-up on accepting or rejecting details of the negotiation (possibly with a threshold to be exceeded to confirm approval). This Brexit seems so toxic now it needs to be put out of its misery: the other lesson is, of course, never trust the Tories again.

So Scotland will have same way to go to become independent?

For about the 50th time, Lab, LibDems, Tories all voted for the referendum, oh and since you rate the indyref1 as something of a mess why ever trust the SNP again?